chimerror

I'm Kitty (and so can you!)

  • she/her

Just a leopard from Seattle who sometimes makes games when she remembers to.


gnar
@gnar

initial disclaimer: this is an uninformed political take. please dont be mean to me in the comments

this post is inspired by, but not a direct response to @lexyeevee's "piracy is not praxis" post, which i think people in the comments of that post are being uncharitable to her. it also has people demonstrating the common phenomenon of wanting Doing X to also be Doing Leftism (aka: praxis), which I think is a mistake. I think this mistake occurs, understandably, because people are invested in Being Leftist. however, this leads to the following incorrect argument:

  1. one wishes to believe: "i am a good person"
  2. one believes: "being a leftist means you are a good person"
  3. one believes: "doing leftist things means you are a leftist"
  4. one does X
  5. one therefore concludes: "doing X is leftist"
  6. one therefore concludes: "i am a leftist because I do X"
  7. one therefore concludes: "i am a good person because i am a leftist"

this isn't a rational argument, but it is emotionally very compelling. i think that most people either consciously or subconsciously believe this argument, even when they say they don't. (in fact, i think i also end up believing the above argument a lot). i think this is why there are so many arguments on the internet about whether or not it's sufficiently Communist to make chili for your neighbor or similar. it ends up turning The Thing You Do into an identity challenge.

to be very clear: it is possible for X to be a thing which is worth doing, but nevertheless is not Doing Leftism. its not leftist to make chili for your neighbor, but you should still do it because it means you make a friend and get to eat good food, and more over, it would be ridiculous to need to know if that "making chili" should be praxis or not before deciding whether or not you should make chili for your neighbors!

things which i think are not Doing Leftism but can still be worth doing:

  • piracy of media for personal consumption
  • piracy of software programs
  • piracy of most academic papers
  • installing an ad blocker
  • making exceptions for specific websites for your ad blocker
  • subscribing to most paterons
  • buying games on itch.io instead of steam
  • most archival work
  • shoplifting
  • participating in fandom, including furry fandom
  • shipping, writing fanfic, drawing fanart, making fangames, and anything similar to that
  • watching media analysis youtubers
  • (most breadtube videos tbh)
  • using webp as an image format
  • not using webp as an image format
  • using discord as a wiki, forum, or file host
  • not using discord as a wiki, forum, or file host
  • almost all foss projects
  • using mastodon instead of {twitter, cohost, tumblr, etc}
  • using cohost instead of {twitter, mastodon, tumblr, etc}
  • using tumblr instead of {twitter, cohost, mastodon etc}
  • using social media in general

ann-arcana
@ann-arcana

archive link

i think about this thread constantly.

we have been tamed so thoroughly by capitalism that we have internalized as a generation the idea that passive consumerism is somehow activism, and it seeps into every discourse on the internet in the dumbest ways.

piracy isn't praxis for the same reason that watching the disney is/isn't.

none of it is. it's always just been bread and circuses all the way down.

we are not going to save the world by chosting through it.

you can make your own choices for your own peace of mind, but do not fool yourself into thinking it amounts to anything else, or you will be bitterly disappointed with the world.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @gnar's post:

good post

although i might argue that "making chili", "buying itch games", "sharing fan work" etc is... maybe not political action (which i assume is how you're defining Leftism™), but it's still directing personal effort towards the way we wish the world worked on a local level, and that's nice, and it can make a big practical difference to other people

i don't seem to have a cap for that train of thought but i guess it would be nice if the calculus were more about impact on human beings (including ourselves) in the first place instead of whether we're fitting definitions. i should've been asleep three hours ago

i can agree with that, in the same way that “recycling your soda cans” is probably not “environmental activism” but is aligned with said goals (i’m deliberately setting aside the part where recycling isn’t a actually very effective at all)

absolutely. a lot of the stuff mentioned in the post share commonalities w/ leftist thought and its good to do it for that reason. ex: i like right to repair even though right to repair wont bring about the revolution, because i value giving people agency over their own tools (which is somewhat similar to the desire for workers to own the means of production)

What on Earth is even going on in that thread. It's like a bunch of people shifted over from the parallel universe cohost and decided to reply by ignoring the obvious (it's the title) thesis statement of the original post.

“The Post” is correct in its arguments but was written with inflammatory, engagement-centered language. Is it so surprising that people react emotionally to the parts of the post prompting emotional responses?

Several people have rewritten the argument in a neutral-tone and it lead to much healthier comment sections. So, why was it written that way? Who benefits from that rhetoric?

I don't see it as fair to confidently label the post as having "inflammatory, engagement-centered language" while the people responding are simply "reacting emotionally." Eevee herself even admits it was written emotionally to some degree, so why is she not afforded that understanding?

This doesn't not have to be some kind of tit-for-tat pvp arena. We can reflect on all aspects of an unhealthy conversation and find better ways to engage with each other. Not everyone is great at parsing social interactions or how their framing of words will be taken. Misunderstandings happen. So it's valuable to be patient and actually confirm our understanding of something with a person before adding to the emotional pile.

I don't preclude the possibility that the poster wrote the post emotionally. What do you think is unfair about that characterization?

So it's valuable to be patient and actually confirm our understanding of something with a person before adding to the emotional pile.

Could you be more explicit? I don't follow what the 'something' in this sentence means.

I don't preclude the possibility that the poster wrote the post emotionally. What do you think is unfair about that characterization?

It's "engagement-centered" along with the later "so, why was it written that way? Who benefits from that rhetoric?" that suggested an intentional style of writing to get a certain kind of response, but of course that itself just an interpretation. I don't know if you meant to communicate that, sorry.

Either way I think I got that reading mixed with the main frustration I'm trying to articulate, which is the tendency to primarily focus on the tone of the person starting a conversation.

Like, I think we actually agree on the post not being written in an ideal way, but it greatly bothers me seeing some people layering on and doubling down on their own perceptions that just make the whole thing way, way messier that it needs to be. I think that deserves more attention.

So I guess all I'd want to do is just present that in addition to your comment, my feelings on the wording aside.

Could you be more explicit? I don't follow what the 'something' in this sentence means.

Sorry, I mean the idea someone is trying to communicate or the intent of their language.

in reply to @ann-arcana's post:

i agree w/ this addition, although to be clear i also am deliberately including non-consumptive fandom as also being "not praxis" (it is not praxis to be a furry, even though "being a furry" generally doesn't require you to consume things made by a corporation)